New Hampshire Primary 2012: Green

Rick Santorum thanks god for hydrofracking at Koch sponsored CPAC

2012-02-16T05:35:00.000-08:00

Rick Santorum’s used his speech at CPAC 2012 to again reject the idea of anthropogenic global warming, as well as dismiss concerns about hydrofracking.

This year’s Conservative Political Action Conference was sponsored in part by fossil fuel industry giant Koch Industries, along with a slew of organizations supported by billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, including the American Legislative Exchange Council, Americans for Prosperity, and Charles Koch Institute.

Transcript of Rick Santorum's comments on global warming and hydrofracking at CPAC 2012:

Of course, one of the favorite things of the left is to use your sentimentality, your proper understanding and belief that we are stewards of this Earth, and that we have a responsibility to hand off a beautiful Earth to the next generation.

And so they use that, and they’ve used it in the past, to try to scare you into supporting radical ideas on the environment.

They tried it with this idea, this politicization of science called man-made global warming.

And President Obama, you may remember, tried to pass cap and trade and tried to get control not only of the healthcare system, but of the energy industry, the manufacturing industry.

Another two big sectors of this economy, and using this façade of man-made global warming.

Well I stood up and fought against those things.

Why?

Because they will destroy the very foundation of prosperity in our country.

You look at any country in the world and you look at their energy consumption and the cost of energy, and their quality of life, their standard of living.

The more energy consumption, the higher the standard of living.

That’s just the bottom line.

We need an America, if we’re going to fuel a great and vibrant economy, we need affordable energy.

And this administration has gone out and not only has it attacked us with cap and trade and global warming, but now that that has been thrown on the dustbin of history, now they’re going after hydrofracking.

Now, I come from Pennsylvania.

We’re doing a little bit of that in Pennsylvania, thank God.

And guess what?

Of course, now that we’re doing hydrofracking near the population centers, the boogie man comes out.

Ooh! Look at what it’s going to do to you.

Do you know how many wells have been hydrofracked in the United States?

Oh, about seven or eight hundred thousand.

Where’s been all the noise?

Ladies and gentlemen, they scare you to intimidate you to trust them, and to give them more power.

We need someone who is going to go out on these big issues of the day and draw contrasts.

A full video of Rick Santorum's speech at CPAC 2012 can be found on C-Span.org

Newt Gingrich talks dinosaurs, climate change (Video)

2012-02-15T04:54:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich fielded a question about climate change at the February 6, 2012 Colorado Energy Summit. The event was hosted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and Consumer Energy Alliance, a group supported by BP and Exxon Mobil, two of the world's most notorious spillers of oil.

Here's a transcript of his response:

Question: I wonder, do you believe in human induced climate change?

Newt Gingrich: I believe we don’t know.

I am an amateur paleontologist.

The planet has changed its temperature a number of times.

Calista and I were at the field museum in Chicago at Labor Bay looking at dinosaurs from the Antarctic.

If you look at the Antarctic today you’ll figure it must be a lot warmer when the dinosaurs were there.

What I’ve said in the past is I’m happy to take prudent measures that aren’t very expensive, so if we can find ways to have relatively inexpensive, safe nuclear power, I am for it.

The fact that Iowa produces 20% of its electricity from wind is fine.

I mean, there a lot of things you could do at the margin.

What I would not do is I would not turn power over to the bureaucracy to run the entire country.

I have always opposed cap and trade.

And I want to be clear, because many of you have seen it, or you'll see ads about it.

The ad I did with Nancy Pelosi is the dumbest single thing I have done in the past 5 or 6 years.

Okay? It was just stupid, but I did not say at any point in that ad that I was in favor of cap and trade.

In fact, when Gore testified in favor of it, I testified against it the same day.

You can go to Newt.org and see the videotape of the testimony.

I always tell people, even if you thought it was true, that doesn’t mean the only answer is avoidance.

You know, the Dutch have been faced with the ocean for a long time.

They did not adopt an Al Gore approach of lowering the sea.

They built dikes.

So there are lots of ways to solve problems that don’t involve institutionalized stupidity.

Video of Newt Gingrich's climate change remarks:

A complete video of Newt Gingrich's speech at the 2012 Colorado Energy Summit is available on C-Span.

Rick Santorum: Global warming a travesty of scientific research

2012-02-14T05:31:00.000-08:00

Rick Santorum continued his attack on global warming at the February 6, 2012 Colorado Energy Summit. Held at the Colorado School of Mines, the event was hosted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and Consumer Energy Alliance, a group backed by a who's who of Big Oil companies, including BP and Exxon Mobil.

Transcript of Rick Santorum's comments on global warming:

The most important thing we need to do, which is what this administration has not done, which is to use sound science, not politicized science.

We have seen the politicization of science like we have never seen before in the recent years.

We saw it with global warming.

A absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by politics.

Motivated by those who saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and crisis and for government to step in and even greatly and more control your life.

I can tell you, I for one never bought the hoax.

I for one understood, just from science, that there were a hundred factors that influence the climate, and to suggest that one minor factor of which man’s contribution is a minor factor in the minor factor is the determining ingredient in the sauce that affects the entire global warming and cooling is just absurd on its face.

And yet, we had politicians running to the ramparts.

Unfortunately politicians who happen to be running for the Republican nomination for President, who bought into man-made global warming and bought into cap and trade.

Both Congressman Gingrich and Governor Romney, both supported the idea of man made global warming and in fact cap and trade.

I never did, and unless the science is such that it is a heck of a lot better than what we see today, I won’t.

Video of Rick Santorum's global warming remarks:

A full video of Rick Santorum's speech at the 2012 Colorado Energy Summit can be found on C-Span

Mitt Romney talks global warming, drugs in Miama, FL - Video

2012-01-28T08:10:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney first praised youth for caring about global warming, then blamed young people for the nation’s illegal drug problem, during his January 27, 2012 speech to members of the Hispanic Leadership Network in Miami, Florida:

“We have got to do a much better job communicating to our children in this country, whether they are Hispanic or non-Hispanics, that drugs are causing deaths around the world.”

“Our young people have a great deal of concern. They’re a very humanitarian people. They’re concerned about issues like global warming and things of that nature, and they’re concerned about humanity.”

“I hope they understand that if they take one of these drugs that are being smuggled into this country, that they are partially responsible for deaths.”

“I want them to understand the tens of thousands of people who are being killed by virtue of drug use in this country.”

“It’s time for the United States of America to take responsibility for the pain and suffering and torture and murder that’s going on throughout Latin America.”

“We are not a good example in this regard, and that much change. If I’m president, I will campaign in a very aggressive way to our young people. Stop taking drugs because you are killing people.”

Rick Santorum: Global warming hoax

2012-01-27T03:32:00.000-08:00

Rick Santorum believes his consistent denial of global warming makes him the most qualified Republican presidential candidate to take on President Barack Obama in the 2012 election.

“Cap-and-trade -- both of them bought into the global warming hoax, bought into the cap-and-trade, top-down control of our energy and manufacturing sector,” the former Pennsylvania Senator said of current GOP frontrunners Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney during last night’s CNN Florida Republican Presidential Debate.

It was the only time global warming was mentioned during the debate.

Santorum delivered a rambling explanation of his views on climate science and carbon emissions during a January 6, 2012 town hall meeting with voters in Belmont, NH. A transcript and video of his comments can be found here:

http://newhampshireprimary.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-nh-rick-santorum-talks-climate.html

Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address to Focus on Clean Energy

2012-01-24T05:30:00.000-08:00

Expect clean energy to be one focus of President Barack Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address tonight - January 24, 2012 - his third since taking office in January 2009.

In a YouTube video posted on Saturday, Obama previewed his “blueprint for an economy that’s built to last.”

Among the things Obama plans to talk about during his 2012 State of the Union address:

American manufacturing with more good jobs and more products stamped ‘Made in America’
American energy fueled by homegrown and alternative energy sources

President Obama has made clean energy and the environment a major sub-theme of his reelection campaign ever since announcing his decision to turn down the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline last week. It’s a theme that is prominent in his campaign’s first TV ad of the 2012 election.

“Secretive oil billionaires attacking President Obama with ads fact checkers say are ‘not tethered to the facts’ while independent watchdogs call this President’s record on ethics ‘unprecedented’,” the ad states. “And America’s clean energy industry: 2.7 million jobs and expanding rapidly. For the first time in 13 years, our dependence on foreign oil is below 50 percent.”

The 2.7 million jobs number comes from a 2011 Brookings Institute report, Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment. Factcheck.org correctly notes many of these green jobs were around before Obama entered the White House, while acknowledging the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 “no doubt goosed clean energy employment.” Of course, what researchers Brookings Institute actually counted were jobs across the entire green economy, not just the clean energy sector. Their most impressive finding was that the wider clean economy employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry.

Getting specific, President Obama takes credit for supporting more than 224,000 clean energy jobs in an online posting celebrating his decision to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

“And the idea, as some in Washington have tried to suggest, that building a pipeline is the ultimate answer to the question of American energy security and job creation is nothing more than a pipe dream,” Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, wrote in a recent op-ed published in USA Today. "The truth is that just two of the Administration’s programs – the DOE Loan Guarantee Program and the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – will create more than 10 times the amount of jobs generated by the Keystone XL pipeline, which will only generate a few thousand temporary jobs."

During his 2011 State of the Union address, Obama talked extensively about clean energy:

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology -– (applause) -- an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Already, we’re seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard. Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert’s words, “We reinvented ourselves.”

That’s what Americans have done for over 200 years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they’re developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they’re using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if -- I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all -- and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

Watch video of President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address live online at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2012

Barack Obama’s EPA speech – Video and Transcript

2012-01-11T04:48:00.000-08:00

U.S. President Barack Obama paid a visit to the EPA yesterday, where he talked at length about the environment as Republican presidential candidates spent their final day campaigning here in New Hampshire before packing their bags and heading down to South Carolina.

Transcript of Obama’s speech to the EPA:

Barack Obama: Thank you! Thank you, EPA! (Applause.) Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much. It is wonderful to see you. It is great to see you. Thank you, thank you.

Now, everybody can have a seat. I know Lisa is making you guys all stand up. (Laughter.) But you can all relax.

It is wonderful to be here with all of you. Thank you so much for all the great work you do. I want to first acknowledge your outstanding Administrator, Lisa Jackson. (Applause.) She has done an extraordinary job leading this agency. But here’s what I want all of you to know: Not only is she good on policy, not only is she tough and able to present the EPA’s mission so effectively to the public, but she also has your back. (Applause.) She is an advocate on behalf of all the people who work so hard here at the EPA. And so you should know that your boss loves you, even if she doesn’t always show it, I don’t know. (Laughter.)

The main reason I’m here is simple: I just want to say thank you. I want to say thank you to each and every one of you, because the EPA touches on the lives of every single American every single day. You help make sure that the air we breathe, the water we drink, the foods we eat are safe. You protect the environment not just for our children but their children. And you keep us moving towards energy independence.

And it is a vital mission. Over the past three years, because of your hard work, we’ve made historic progress on all these fronts. Just a few weeks ago, thanks to the hard work of so many of you, Lisa and I was able to announce new common-sense standards to better protect the air we breathe from mercury and other harmful air pollution. And that was a big deal. (Applause.) And part of the reason it was a big deal was because, for over 20 years, special interest groups had successfully delayed implementing these standards when it came to our nation’s power plants. And what we said was: “Enough.” It’s time to get this done.

And because we acted, we’re going to prevent thousands of premature deaths, thousands of heart attacks and cases of childhood asthma.

There are families that are going to be directly impacted in a positive way because of the work that you do. Because you kept fighting -- and some of you have been fighting this fight for a long time, long before I was here and long before Lisa was here. And so your tenacity and stick-to-itness is making a difference.

Because of you, across the board, we’re cutting down on acid rain and air pollution. We’re making our drinking water cleaner and safer. We’re creating healthier communities. But that’s not all. Safeguarding our environment is also about strengthening our economy. I do not buy the notion that we have to make a choice between having clean air and clean water and growing this economy in a robust way. I think that is a false debate. (Applause.)

Think about it: We established new fuel economy standards, a historic accomplishment that is going to slash oil consumption by about 12 billion barrels, dramatically reduces pollution that contributes to climate change, and saves consumers thousands of dollars at the pump, which they can then go spend on something else.

As part of the Recovery Act, you cleaned up contaminated sites across the country, which helped to rid neighborhoods of environmental blight while putting Americans back to work.

We don’t have to choose between dirty air and dirty water or a growing economy. We can make sure that we are doing right by our environment and, in fact, putting people back to work all across America. That’s part of our mission.

When we put in place new common-sense rules to reduce air pollution, we create new jobs building and installing all sorts of pollution-control technology. When we put in place new emissions standards for our vehicles, we make sure that the cars of tomorrow are going to be built right here in the United States of America, that we’re going to win that race.

When we clean up our nation’s waterways, we generate more tourists for our local communities. So what’s good for the environment can also be good for our economy.

Now, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be some tensions. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be legitimate debates that take place. That doesn’t mean that it’s not important for every single one of us to think about how can we make sure that we are achieving our goals in the smartest way possible, in the most efficient ways possible, in the least bureaucratic ways possible, in the clearest ways possible. That’s also part of our mission.

There’s not a federal agency that can’t get better and be smarter in accomplishing our mission, and we have an obligation every single day to think about how can we do our business a little bit better. How can we make sure the taxpayers are getting every dime’s worth that they’re paying in order to achieve these important common goals that we have?

But I believe we can do it, and you’ve shown me that we can do it over these last three years. So I could not be prouder of the work that you all do every single day as federal employees. I know the hours can be long. I know that sometimes spending time getting these policies right means less time at home than you’d like, and you’re missing birthday parties, or you’re missing a soccer game, and the spouse is not happy with you. I know a little bit about that sometimes. (Laughter.) I know these jobs are demanding.

But I also know what compelled you to enter public service in the first place -- and that’s the idea that you could make a difference; that you could leave behind a planet that is a little cleaner, a little safer than the one we inherited.

And I have to tell you that part of why I get excited when I see some of the work that you’re doing is because our next generation is so much more attuned to these issues than I was when I was growing up. I can tell you when I sit down and I talk to my kids, probably the area where they have the most sophisticated understanding of policy is when it comes to the environment. They understand that the decisions we make now are going to have an impact on their lives for many years to come. And their instincts are right. So your mission is vital.

And just think of what this agency has been able to do over the last four decades. There’s so many things we now take for granted. When I hear folks grumbling about environmental policy, you almost want to do a Back to the Future -- (laughter) -- kind of reminder of folks of what happens when we didn’t have a strong EPA. The year before President Nixon created the EPA, the Cuyahoga River was so dirty from industrial pollution and oil slicks that it literally caught on fire. In my hometown, the Chicago River -- you probably could not find anything alive in there -- (laughter) -- four decades ago. Now it’s thriving -- to the benefit of the city. Today, because of your work, 92 percent of Americans have access to clean water that meets our national health standards.

Before the EPA was created, our cars were spewing harmful lead pollution into the air, with all sorts of impacts, especially on children. Today, because of your work, air pollution is down by more than half, and lead pollution is down more than 90 percent from a generation ago.

So all of you, and all of those who served before you, have made a difference. Our environment is safer because of you. Our country is stronger because of you. Our future is brighter because of you. And I want you to know that you’ve got a President who is grateful for your work and will stand with you every inch of the way as you carry out your mission to make sure that we’ve got a cleaner world. (Applause.)

So, thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)

Video of Barack Obama’s EPA speech:

President Obama talks clean energy at Washington, DC fundraiser

2012-01-10T17:20:00.000-08:00

On the eve of the 2012 New Hampshire Primary, President Barack attended a campaign fundraiser in the nation’s capitol, where he delivered a rousing speech touching on number of green issues.

In his speech, Obama revisited a familiar theme of his 2008 presidential campaign: change.

“Change is the decision we made to stop waiting for Congress to do something about our oil addiction and go ahead and finally raise fuel efficiency standards on cars,” he said. “And now, by the next decade we are going to be driving cars that get 55 miles to a gallon. And that is going to help our environment. That will help our economy. That’s going to help consumers. That’s because of you. That’s what change is.”

He sought to define the direction his reelection campaign would take during the 2012 election.

“The debate we’re going to have in this election is about where do we go from here,” Obama said.

“We should be in a race to support the best scientists and researchers who are trying to make the next breakthrough in clean energy and medicine,” he later added. “And those should happen right here in the United States of America.”

The President also poked fun at his Republican rivals.

“Republicans in Congress and these candidates, they think that the best way for America to compete for new jobs and businesses is to follow other countries in a race to the bottom,” he said. “They figure, well, China pays low wages, we should pay low wages. Let's roll back the minimum wage. Let's prevent folks from organizing for collective bargaining in this country. Since other countries allow corporations to pollute as much as they want, why not get rid of the protections that ensure our air is clean and our water is clean.”

Seeking to fire up supporters for the tough fight ahead, Obama pointed to the words of Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.

“And everything we fought for during the last election is at stake in this election,” he declared. “The very core of what this country stands for is on the line. The basic promise that no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, this is a place where you could make it if you try. The notion that we're all in this together, that we look out for one another. That's at stake in this election. Don't take my word for it. Watch some of these debates that have been going on up in New Hampshire.”

White House photo of President Barack Obama visiting a home in Cleveland, Ohio by Pete Souza.

Mitt Romney’s EPA black out at New Hampshire Primary Debate

2012-01-10T04:52:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney pleaded ignorance when asked to comment on the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule at the January 8, 2012 NBC News Facebook debate in Concord, NH:

John Distaso, NH Union Leader: Great, for Governor Romney, I'm gonna stay with you for one moment here. On the-- talking about regulation. One of your prime, New Hampshire supports, Senator Kelly Ayotte, has said, quote, "New Hampshire should not be the tailpipe for pollutants from out of state power plants." Many Senate Republicans attacked an EPA rule limiting air pollution that affects downwind states. But she and others, including Scott Brown, joined with the president and Senate Democrats to block a repeal effort. Now is this an example, this cross-state air pollution rule, of fair regulation? Something that we in the Northeast are very concerned about, in terms of-- pollution? Or is this over-regulation, job-killing over-regulation?

Mitt Romney: Well, I'm not-- I'm not familiar with this specific regulation, as it-- as it applies to-- to New Hampshire, but I do believe that we have a responsibility to keep the air clean. And we have to find ways to assure that we don’t have the pollution of one state overwhelming the-- the-- ability of another state to have clean air. I know in my state of Massachusetts, we-- we receive a lot of air from the rest of the country, obviously, given the winds coming from the West of the country to the East.

And so the responsibility in our state, was to get the cost-- get the-- the emissions from our power plants down. That's one of the reasons why we moved to natural gas. And-- and really, by the way, this-- this discussion about energy and security and getting the cost of gasoline down. The-- the big opportunity here is not just a new oil distribution system, but it's natural gas.

We have massive new natural gas reserves that have been found in Pennsylvania, in-- in North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas. Natural gas cheap, a fraction of the cost per BTU of-- of oil. If we want to help people in New England have-- not only homes and businesses that emit less pollutant into the air, and therefore would have cleaner air, and also have lower-cost energy, it's let's build out this natural gas system so that we can take advantage of that new enormous source of American economic strength.

The recent U.S. Senate vote to save the EPA clean air rule made national headlines.

New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte, who has endorsed Romney, is on the former Massachusetts Governor’s list of potential running mates. She has joined Romney on the campaign trail on a number of occasions.

Just two months ago, Ayotte provided a nuanced explanation of her vote to save the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule:

Kelly Ayotte: Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Senate Joint Resolution 27, a resolution of disapproval of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. I appreciate my friend - the Senator from Kentucky - for bringing his concerns forward through this resolution. However, this is an issue that I have been extensively involved with as New Hampshire's former Attorney General, and I believe this resolution is misguided. This issue requires a balanced approach, and when looking at environmental regulations, we must view each on a case-by-case basis. In that vein, I cannot support this resolution.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is designed to control emissions of air pollution that cause air quality problems in downwind states, and is estimated to reduce power plant sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent and emissions from nitrogen oxides by 54 percent from 2005 levels. It is important to note that similar pollution standards have been in place for six years - first implemented by the Bush administration in 2005 - and many utilities have already taken steps to comply with the rule. The rule encourages the use of the best technology available so downwind states such as New Hampshire will be able to achieve national clean air standards. Without this rule in place, New Hampshire will be unable to achieve national clean air standards due to air pollution that is outside of the state's regulatory control.

We have a long, bipartisan tradition in New Hampshire of working to advance common sense, balanced environmental regulations. That's the perspective from which I approach this resolution. From my time as the state's Attorney General, I understand well that New Hampshire is one of several downwind states in what is infamously known as "America's tailpipe." For far too long, air pollution generated by Midwestern coal-fired power plants has been allowed to flow into the jet stream unabated and to settle in the New England region - leading to diminished air quality in my home state on New Hampshire.

As Attorney General, I worked to protect Granite State residents and our environment from air pollutants generated by Midwestern coal-fired power plants. The reality is that air pollution does not stop at state borders, and New Hampshire should not be the tailpipe for pollutants from out-of-state power plants. It is a matter of common sense to ensure that one state's emissions are not unduly harming another state's air quality.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Resolution of Disapproval.

In NH, Newt Gingrich explains Environmental Solutions Agency

2012-01-09T19:14:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich fielded a question about his plan to replace the EPA with something called the Environmental Solutions Agency at the January 8, 2012 NBC News Facebook Debate in Concord, New Hampshire.

“Speaker Gingrich,what exactly is an ‘Environmental Solutions Agency?” asked John Distaso, a political reporter for the New Hampshire Union Leader. “I think a lot of people might not know or understand that, why you wanted to disband the EPA and set up something that kind of looks like the EPA.”

Here is a transcript of the former House Speaker’s response:

Newt Gingrich: If you look at the EPA's record, it is increasingly radical. It's increasingly imperious. It doesn't cooperate. It doesn't collaborate. And it doesn't take into account economics. The City of Nashville, recently, had a dump that was cited by EPA. They went out to find out what was it being cited for. And they told them, frankly, "We don't know. We can't find the records that led to this citation. And we're not exactly sure what to reference, but it must be bad or we wouldn't have sent it out."

In Iowa, they had a dust regulation underway, because they control particulate matter. And I do agree on clean air. There are things they should do (UNINTEL). But dust in Iowa is an absurdity. And they were worried that the plowing of a cornfield would leave dust to go to another farmer's cornfield. And they were gonna -- they were plannin' (UNINTEL) regulation.

In Arizona, they went in on the dust regulation and suggested to them that maybe if they watered down the earth, they wouldn't have these dust storms in the middle of the year. And people said to 'em, "You know, the reason it's called a desert is there's no water." Now this is an agency out of touch with reality, which I believe is incorrigible, and you need a new agency that is practical, has common sense, uses economic factors, and in case of pollution, actually, incentivizes change, doesn't just punish it.

Newt Gingrich’s 21^st Century Contract With America provides a more focused description of the role the Environmental Solutions Agency would play:

We must also replace the EPA, which pursues an anti-jobs agenda the economy simply cannot sustain. A pro-growth Environmental Solutions Agency in its place will operate on the premise that most environmental problems can and should be solved by states and local communities. Rather than emphasizing centralization and regulation, it would emphasize coordination with states and local communities, the sharing of best practices, and focus on incentives for new solutions, research and technologies.

Newt Gingrich photo by Gage Skidmore

In NH, Rick Santorum Talks Climate change - Video and Transcript

2012-01-06T07:32:00.000-08:00

Rick Santorum spoke at length about his views on climate change while responding to a voter's question at a January 4, 2012 town hall meeting in Belmont, NH.

His comments were caught on video by C-Span:

Transcript of Rick Santorum's climate change talk in Belmont, NH:

Voter: I was wondering how you’ve integrated your financial policies with the findings of current climate change science.

Rick Santorum: The question is on how do I get my policies with climate change science.

I get asked this question a lot, and you look at the data and you can see some change in the climate.

But then again, pick a point in history where you haven’t seen a change in the climate.

The climate does change.

The question is, what is causing the climate to change.

And I think most scientists, in fact, I assume all scientists would agree there are a variety of factors that cause the climate change.

I don’t think any scientist in the world would suggest there isn’t a variety of factors, and I think the vast majority of scientists would say there’s probably a hundred factors that cause the climate to change.

And so why have we decided that this one particular factor, carbon dioxide, is in fact that tip of the tail that wags the entire dog.

Why from a scientific point of view do we make the assertion that this is in fact what is the case when there is a whole lot of other factors out there that could be affecting it?

So, that’s the question.

Some people have very strong feelings that it is that.

There are a lot of other people who don’t.

Here’s the question.

Let’s even assume, for purposes of argument, not that I agree with it, but for purposes of argument, that they are right.

Then what would be a rational response?

Well, if you have a problem and you want to craft something, what should that thing that you’re crafting do?

Solve the problem.

Do any of the proposed solutions put forward by Al Gore and his friends do anything to solve the problem?

Even the scientists who support the theory will admit to you that it doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.

So query, why support the solution, other than you may have some other agenda that may be in place here.

Right?

And let’s go back to what that agenda is.

There’s a common theme that you should be hearing here.

They don’t trust you to allocate resources in a way that they believe is best, and so they want to have a system that forces you to do what they think you should do in running your business and your lives.

Rick Santorum may want to pay a visit to the EPA website, where he will learn that scientists and policy makers have identified a number major greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, including methane, nitrous oxide, and flourinated gases.

Update:

New Hampshire Primary 2012: Green's coverage of Rick Santorum's latest comments on climate change is making global news:

The Guardian - Elections 2012 Live With Richard Adams

Mother Jones - Santorum: Climate Change is a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

DeSmogBlog - Santorum Misrepresents Science Again

Treehugger - Rick Santorum is Beyond Confused About Climate Change

Jon Huntsman shares energy plan in Manchester, NH

2012-01-05T06:02:00.000-08:00

Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman shared his plan for energy independence at a town hall meeting with employees of Public Service of New Hampshire held in Manchester on January 4, 2012. The one time Utah Governor and U.S. Ambassador to China was also endorsed by former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge at the event.

Transcript of Huntsman’s remarks on energy:

Voter: Governor, we’re importing a lot of foreign oil and exporting those dollars overseas.

Talk a little about your energy policy to reverse that trend and how we can be more self sustaining with our energies in the country to support our economy.

Jon Huntsman: Well, I want to start by leading a conversation in this nation that points out how ridiculous it is to maintain this heroin like addiction to imported oil, and the transfer of wealth to the tune of $300 billion a year that lands in countries that having nothing more than a transactional relationship with the United States.

I would say, “We’re losing a huge opportunity here, when we can be doing it based upon what we have in great abundance here.”

So we wake up to the reality in this country that – we were talking about this earlier – we have more gas than Saudi Arabia has crude oil.

I say, “How stupid are we?”

I mean, when are we going to wake up and get with the picture here, and start converting more to transportation, converting more to power and electricity generation, and converting more to basic manufacturing, where we’re at maybe 19 percent.

They want to go higher, but they need that clarion call from the bully pulpit that says, “Folks, it’s not a mandate, but here’s where our country is going in terms of energy independence. Jump on the bus. We’re not looking back, we’re moving forward.”

I’ll tell you how many companies would start moving in that direction.

There’s just been no clarity in terms of where we go.

So as the first Governor to sign onto the Pickens Plan, I like the natural gas part of the Pickens Plan, and I’ve talked to T. Boone Pickens several times about energy and our energy needs.

And I say, you can talk about the multiplicity of products that we can begin drawing from.

That’s all a reality. I think it’s very real.

I think the sun and the wind will play a role in the future.

I think inevitably that’s where science and technology takes us.

The question becomes, if we’re going to do it in a non-subsidized fashion -- we’re all learning that you can’t do it in a subsidized fashion. It crashes and burns.

We’ve got to build a bridge from our today to that inevitable tomorrow, whenever that is.

And I say, lets begin building that bridge with the products we have in abundance.

And here’s the one thing I want to do.

When elected president, because you can’t, again, I’m not one to promise the moon.

I say, here’s the one step I’m going to take, because I lived this reality when I drove a natural gas car as Governor.

I never thought I’d drive a natural gas car.

I ran into an entrepreneur in the northern part of our state.

He said, “I’d love to take that black Suburban of yours and convert it to natural gas.”

I said, “I had no idea that you could even do that.”

So you know, thinking in terms of wanting to move towards greater energy independence, I said, “Go for it.”

Tooled around the state.

We started a wide ranging conversation around the state about alternative fuels only to find that the rate limiting feature was there was no distribution.

There were no fill up stations.

And the last thing the Governor wanted was to get caught 300 miles from nowhere.

So I went to our public utilities and said, “Folks, you can either be ahead of this debate or you can be behind. I think you’re going to want to be ahead. I need some help in building some infrastructure so we can designate a natural gas corridor and get the marketplace moving so people begin buying up.”

Which they did.

People responded to that and they were right on it.

We ended up designating a natural gas corridor, which I thought was pretty cool.

But the one thing I want to do as President, I want to break up this one product distribution monopoly, because it’s not serving our needs.

And it favors oil, and only oil.

And I say, that’s not right.

That’s not fair to all the other products that we want to begin drawing from.

And I think it could be the most powerful contribution towards energy independence of anything.

Because, let’s face it, if we’re going to make energy independence or steps towards that goal a reality, we’ve got to have the infrastructure with which to do it.

You know, words are just words unless you can actually talk about the infrastructure.

So I want to do to that distribution system what we did to broadcast communication back in the early 1970’s when we went from three stations to a multiplicity of stations.

And I say, it’s going to take the Federal Trade Commission.

Of course, it’s going to take the Senate Judiciary Committee.

They all have to be part of it.

But let’s start the journey, and let’s get a President who can actually advocate in favor of making that very important step, without which it’s a whole bunch of talk and we don’t have the infrastructure in place with which to get something done.

So I think that would be the most important contribution we could make, and I want to get behind it.

Video of Jon Huntsman’s energy comments courtesy of C-Span:

Mitt Romney: New Hampshire stops in Manchester, Peterborough today

2012-01-04T05:57:00.000-08:00

Republican presidential candidiate Mitt Romney will host two town hall meetings in New Hampshire today – January 4, 2012.

Fresh off his narrow first place finish in the Iowa Caucus, Romney will be at Manchester Central High School at 12:45 PM. The school is located at 207 Lowell St. in Manchester, NH.

The former Massachusetts Governor will then host a second town hall meeting starting at 5:45 PM at the Peterborough Town House – 1 Grove Street in Peterborough, NH.

New Hampshire Primary 2012: Green has been documenting Mitt Romney’s comments on global warming and the environment since May of 2011. Below are highlights from my coverage:

Mitt Romney talks global warming in Myrtle Beach, SC

Mitt Romney mocks EPA in Manchester, NH

Mitt Romney talks global warming in Portsmouth, NH

Mitt Romney on Solyndra at Exeter Town Hall

Mitt Romney turns global warming skeptic in Pittsburgh, PA

Mitt Romney talks carbon, energy in Hopkinton, NH

Mitt Romney calls for energy independence at Dover Town Hall meeting:

Mitt Romney talks global warming in Lebanon, NH

Mitt Romney on renewable energy, electric cars and fracking

Mitt Romney on EPA, carbon

Mitt Romney talks climate change in Manchester, NH

Mitt Romney attacks cap and trade in Iowa

Mitt Romney Solar Power Fact Check

Mitt Romney photo by Jessica Rinaldi

Rick Santorum in Brentwood, New Hampshire tonight

2012-01-04T05:04:00.000-08:00

Rick Santorum will host a Town Hall Meeting in Brentwood, NH tonight – Wednesday, January 4, 2012. The event gets under way at 7:30 PM at the Rockingham County Nursing Home, located at 117 North Road.

Santorum's visit comes just one day after his second place finish in the Iowa Caucus. He trailed Mitt Romney by just 8 votes in the Hawkeye State.

New Hampshire Primary 2012: Green has been tracking the former Pennsylvania Senator’s comments on energy and the environment since he first entered the race for president in June of 2011.

Here are a few highlights of my coverage:

Iowa Caucus 2012: Rick Santorum on the Environment

2012 Iowa Caucus: Rick Santorum talks energy, Keystone XL in Ottumwa

In Iowa, Rick Santorum talks coal, water pollution

Rick Santorum shares disbelief in global warming

Rick Santorum photo by Gage Skidmore

2012 Iowa Caucus: Rick Santorum talks energy, Keystone XL in Ottumwa - Video and Transcript

2012-01-02T06:44:00.000-08:00

Rick Santorum discussed energy policy, the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and his views on the environmental movement at a December 31, 2011 New Years Eve rally in Ottumwa, held just days before the January 3, 2012 Iowa Caucus.

Transcript of Rick Santorum's remarks:

We need an energy policy that not only from a national security point of view, but for creating jobs and keeping energy prices down to help manufacturers and other businesses compete.

One regulation the Obama administration just put in place is a regulation that according to the utility industry will require 60 coal fired power plants to be shut down over the next few years.

Now I know they want to get to 20 percent green energy by 2020, I just didn’t think they’d get there by cutting out fossil fuel energy, but that’s what they’re doing.

So we'd repeal that regulation and try to have a program – we’ll put together a program that, again, eliminates subsidies for all energy and says we need a market place, but we need availability of places to get our energy, which means Alaska, offshore, deep water. That means building pipelines.

Alright, I get a kick out of this Keystone XL debate.

Oh, we have this critical aquifer that we have to worry about.

Has anyone looked at the number of pipelines that go through that aquifer now?

I mean, you can’t even see the aquifer if you look at a schematic of how many pipelines are there.

This is just, again, pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon.

It has nothing to do with a pipeline.

It has to do with an ideology.

A religion of its own that’s being pushed on the American public.

Video of Rick Santorum's remarks:

In Iowa, Rick Santorum talks coal, water pollution - Video, Transcript

2012-01-02T06:13:00.000-08:00

Rick Santorum fielded a voter’s question about water pollution at a December 31, 2011 New Years Eve rally in Ottumwa, Iowa. Here’s video and transcript documenting what the former Senator from Pennsylvania and 2012 Republican presidential candidate had to say on the issue:

Voter: I’m concerned with a candidate who has some kind of an environmental policy.

60 miles east of here is a town in Middletown, Iowa, we have an army ammunitions plant that manufactured nuclear weapons and large ammunition, and 207 test wells out of 208 there are contaminated with ground pollution.

An 18-month environmental cleanup has now turned into a cleanup that’s supposed to last until 1946 and could be ongoing from that.

I’m curious what we’re going to do, because we only have so much water, and that water has to take care of all us.

And I’m concerned we’re already at the point of too little too late.

What are we going to do protect our water resources in this country?

Rick Santorum: I must admit, one of the things I learned in politics a long time ago, when you don’t know the answer to a question, you admit it and you don’t keep talking and prove to people you don’t know the answer.

I don’t that specific, this is the first I’ve heard of this situation and I apologize, so I can’t really comment on what’s happening there.

I can say that one of things I’m proud of, I happened to have worked on a bill in 2006 that broke a logjam between, not Democrats and Republicans, but the East and the West having to do with reclamation of abandoned coal mines, and the tremendous amounts of groundwater and other pollution that was coming from these abandoned mines.

Most of the coal mining as you know is now done in the Western states and the way that abandoned mine reclamation is funded, it’s based, it’s funded on a tax on coal from the state from which it comes.

Well obviously most of the abandoned mines are not in the West, they’re in the East.

And yet, all the tax revenue now is being raised in the West, and so, of course the Western producers didn’t want to send their money East, they wanted to use it to clean up their own situation or enhance the environment in that area, and that was a logjam for a long, long time.

But I worked with Mike Enzi and the Senator from Wyoming and we put together a comprehensive bill that now we unlock that monies and now a lot of that Western revenue is going to come and cleanup a tremendous amount of water in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and other place there was a lot of coal mining, which there is not as much today.

So if you’re looking for someone with a record of being able to work not just across party lines, but across national lines to get things done, we were able to do that.

Newt Gingrich on Keystone XL Pipeline, global warming

2011-12-30T06:00:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich correctly identified global warming as one reason why environmentalists oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline, but did not say how he would address this concern in a speech to voters gathered at a December 28, 2011 town hall meeting Southbridge Mall in Mason City, Iowa.

Transcript of Gingrich’s remarks:

Take the XL Keystone Pipeline.

20,000 jobs immediately.

Billions of dollars of oil gone through Houston, which is the largest refinery complex in the world.

A generation of money coming into the U.S. from Canadian oil on the way to worldwide distribution.

The President postpones it, doesn’t want to make a decision.

Why? Because his environmental extremists are against building a pipeline for a very abstract reason.

It’s not because they’re worried about pipelines.

We build pipelines all the time.

They don’t want Canadian oil on the market because of the indirect byproduct that they see in terms of global warming.

Therefore they are trying to keep Canadian oil in Canada.

Now here’s the problem.

It’s one thing if you have an administration that can’t play chess.

It’s another thing if you have an administration that can’t play checkers.

But if you have an administration that can’t play tic-tac-toe, you’re in deep trouble.

The Canadians are not trapped by Barack Obama.

The Canadians can take Chinese money to build the very same pipeline straight west across the Rockies, put it in Vancouver.

Not a penny will come to the United States.

Not a job will be created in the United States.

The environmentalists will lose because the oil is going to be used by the Chinese.

And that’s what the President’s faced with.

And I don’t think he understands it.

So he goes to Brazil and he says to the Brazilians, “I really want to be your best customer.”

He praises the Brazilians for drilling offshore, which he stops us from doing.

He tells them how glad he is we can guarantee $2 billion in equipment for a George Soros invested company.

And then he praises them and says, “I’d like to be your best customer.”

This is exactly backward and every Iowa farmer knows this.

We do not want the President of the United States to be a purchasing agent for foreign countries.

We want the President of the United States to be salesman for American products.

If we don’t sell American agricultural products worldwide, we will have depression in farm country.

So we need a President who goes out and opens up markets for American agricultural products because we produce more than we use at home.

A complete video of Newt Gingrich's town hall meeting in Mason City, Iowa is available on C-Span.

Photo of Newt Gingrich by Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons

Michele Bachmann: Durban Climate Change Conference about redistribution of American money

2011-12-23T07:37:00.000-08:00

Michele Bachmann fielded questions about UN Agenda 21 and global warming at a December 16, 2011 town hall meeting in Orange City, Iowa. The Minnesota Congresswoman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate took the opportunity to share her views on the Durban Climate Change Conference in South Africa. Bachmann also reiterated her plan to eliminate the EPA.

Here is a transcript of her remarks:

Voter: I would like to know what your thoughts are on Agenda 21

Michele Bachmann: Yes, for those who don’t know Agenda 21 is essentially something that came out of the Rio Conference.

It’s about 20 years ago.

Anyone know Al Gore?

Al Gore was there at the Rio Conference and the whole goal is really about global control.

It’s essentially a one world government view where there’s political body and the United States would have to subsume our sovereignty into a global body, but more than that, we would also have to give away our wealth.

So the wealth of the United States would be redistributed to other countries.

As a matter of a fact, that’s what the Durban Conference was about in South Africa this weekend, also about redistribution of American money.

And so I want you to know very clearly where I stand on this issue.

I oppose Agenda 21.

I oppose putting the United States in an international political body where we lose United States sovereignty.

I don’t agree with that.

I don’t agree with a lot of the goals of the UN.

And I don’t agree with taking your money away from you and redistributing it across the world, because I believe in America and American sovereignty

Voter: What do you believe about global warming?

Michele Bachmann: What I believe is that we should not have a political agenda.

So much of the political agenda really in response to your question on Agenda 21 was this Durban Conference in South Africa this last weekend.

It was about global warming.

That was the basis of it.

But that is being used as a political pretext to have the United States tax us with a national energy tax, take that money into the federal government, use it to build a big federal government, but also use it to redistribute our wealth across the world.

I disagree with that.

I absolutely disagree with that agenda.

And so I think that you’ve got to follow the science.

What does science say?

If you look at the sources of carbon dioxide, you’ve got to look at the sources of carbon dioxide.

Is it human activity?

Is it bad what’s being produced?

And I think you’ve got to look at the science and let the science make the decision.

And that’s not what’s happening now.

Now it’s politics that’s driving this decision.

Voter: What would the EPA look like under your administration?

Michele Bachmann: Sure.

What would the EPA look like under my administration?

There wouldn’t be one.

The EPA would be gone, because we already have – there’s already 50 EPA’s in the United States.

There’s one here in Iowa.

It’s best if Iowans deal with clean air and clean water, and set your standards for your state, and let all 50 states…

Who in this room wants dirty water and wants dirty air?

Okay, I think that’s kind of the answer, isn’t it?

Iowans are very common sense people.

I don’t want dirty air and I don’t want dirty water, but that’s not what the EPA is about.

They’re about killing jobs right now.

And for farmers, they’ve been a disaster for farmers as well.

I’ll not only shut down the EPA I’m going to shut down the Department of Education.

And I have a few others in mind too that are going to go.

That’s not grandstanding.

I mean it.

You can take that to the bank.

In the past, Bachmann has employed less tempered language when discussing climate science. On December 11, her campaign issued a statement describing global warming as an “unproven theory”.

C-Span has a full video of Michele Bachmann’s town hall meeting in Orange City, Iowa.

Photo of Michele Bachmann courtesy of IowaPolitics.com via Wikipedia Commons

Donald Trump’s new book calls global warming "psuedo-science"

2011-12-22T09:25:00.000-08:00

In Donald Trump’s new book Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again, the real estate mogul turned reality TV star describes global warming as a “make-believe problem” and “pseudo science”. He’d know make believe when he sees it. Earlier this year, Trump played a pretend Republican presidential candidate in real life, going so far as to mount an exploratory trip to New Hampshire in his Trump-copter.

Now, Trump wants us to believe that he may jump back into the race as a third-party candidate. But he still sounds just like all the other GOP presidential candidates when it comes to energy and the environment. Ignoring the fact that domestic oil production reached a new high in 2010 and that gas prices were at their historic high of well over $4 a gallon under former President George W. Bush, Trump claims that, “In the first two years of the Obama administration, gas prices leapt a shocking 104 percent.” He then recycles all the usual Republican talking points about cap and trade.

Photo of Donald Trump by Michael Sandburg via Wikipedia Commons

At times, Trump sounds a bit more reasonable.

“I’m all for developing alternatives to oil, but that’s for the long term,” he writes, specifically naming geothermal, solar, windmills, and nuclear as examples of alternative fuels.

Of course, these comments are made in a chapter titled “Take the Oil”, which pretty much sums up where Trump thinks we need to focus our attention in the short term.

Should Trump actually decide to run for president under a third party banner, or as an Independent, Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again will certainly provide fodder to anyone who wants to point out the obvious, which is that Trump is really no different than whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be when it comes to energy and environmental policy. For now, his book remains on Amazon’s top 10 Hot New Releases in Politics & Social Science list purely for its entertainment value, or so we hope.

Rick Perry talks Keystone XL, fracking in Decorah, Iowa

2011-12-22T07:44:00.000-08:00

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry faced tough questions and even direct criticism from voters attending a December 18, 2011 town hall meeting in Decorah, Iowa, after he claimed that there is no proof tying groundwater pollution to hydraulic fracking.

The Texas Governor dedicated around ten minutes of the nearly hour-long event to energy issues, arguably his topic of choice on the campaign trail.

Perry began with his usual attack on the EPA, and called for the job of environmental regulation to be transferred to the states:

Rick Perry: I didn’t get around to tellin’ ya about the John Deer and the new engine that they're – the federal government has new emissions standards on this new engine that John Deer is building and its on the nitrogen oxide level.

And I will tell you that I understand about environmental protections and I’m going to tell you just a quick story about Texas in a second and how EPA’s come in and tried to take over what we’re doing in our state and we’ve cleaned up our air more than any other state in the nation.

But the cost to that tractor is going to be $20,000 a copy.

You’re going to have to pay that and I would suggest to you that the air – I mean the difference in the quality of the air that that tractor is going to make is going to be miniscule at best.

And the people of Iowa know better how to keep their air clean and to make sure their water is clear and drinkable than some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.

And so these regulations, whether they’re bank regulations or they’re environmental regulations, they are strangling this country.

I’ll pull every regulation that has gone forward since ’08 and test it for this simple fact: Does it kill jobs or does it create jobs?

And if it kills jobs, we’re going to get rid of them.

We have the ability in our states to protect our environment.

And, as I shared with you, we cleaned up our air more than any other state in the nation.

Nitrogen oxide levels were down by 58% in the decade that we just finished.

It’s our people. It’s our air.

Why would we spoil that with the sensibilities in the state.

Next, Perry fielded two softball questions about the Keystone XL oil pipeline:

Voter: Yeah, on the oil pipeline from Canada tar sands down to Texas for exporting gas and oil versus exporting through British Columbia, Seattle.

What’s your pros and cons of that pipeline proposal?

Rick Perry: I’ve had some pretty lengthy conversations with both the Canadians and the governors that represent the states where that pipeline will go.

Not all of them, but some pretty lengthy conversations.

I have been a proponent of that pipeline.

Energy independence should be a goal for this country.

That’s the reason when I talked about I’m an all of the above energy person.

I don’t think we should shut out any type of legitimate energy source.

I’m not for giving those tax credits, but I am for developing them and removing the regulatory hurdles.

And what we’ve got today – that oil is going to go one of two directions.

It’s either going to go West and the Chinese will buy it or it will go south for the United States consumption.

Every barrel of oil that goes south is one barrel of oil that we will not have to import from foreign countries, and in some cases foreign countries that are hostile to this country.

I mean, I look forward to the day when we can tell Mr. Hugo Chavez, “No thank you, we don’t need any Venezuelan oil.”

None.

But that pipeline creates a lot of jobs, and I’m talking about in the development of the pipeline.

I’m talking about in the building of the pipeline.

I don’t agree that the President should veto this bill.

He should let this pipeline occur.

And I know he’s being pressured by those on the radical environmental side of the aisle that want him to not build this pipeline.

This pipeline has been studied for at least three years.

The information that I have on it, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I’m an absolute expert, but the information is that it is one of the safest pipelines if not the safest pipeline that’s ever been built.

And there are already pipelines that go across the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, which the bone of contention that they’re making.

So this pipeline needs to be built. We need to be looking for every source of energy.

I want to wrap up, one more thing about energy and then I’m coming to you sir.

The federal lands and waters that we have hands off right now for exploration should be opened up.

Only 8% of the proven reserves on our federal lands – and I understand there are places in our federal parks where we’re not going to be exploring.

I mean, we’re not going to be going into the Everglades.

We’re not going into Yellowstone.

But we’ve got millions of acres of federal lands with proven reserves on them that need to be opened up so that we can safely produce those resources.

And I would use a substantial amount if not all of that revenue coming into the federal government to help pay down the debt.

Voter: What do you expect to see happen to our local gas and also national gas prices on gasoline if that pipeline goes through?

Rick Perry: I don’t think you’ll see a big change, would be my instinct, until the infrastructure built.

Here’s what I think occurs when that pipeline is built, because then there’s confidence.

People will feel substantially more secure that this supply of oil in this case is going to have – is going to be coming.

We have found sources of energy that we had no idea that we have ten years ago.

I’m sure all of us have heard the stories a decade ago that we have found all of the petroleum products that there are.

They’ve all been found.

You know, we may be able to improve some secondary tertiary recovery to get it all out, but we’ve found it all.

And then we find these huge natural gas deposits that people didn’t know were there.

Frankly, we don’t know what’s under Iowa.

The technology hadn’t been developed yet maybe.

That Iowa may be sitting on top of huge reserves of natural gas or oil that people haven’t found yet.

So my point is that the way to drive those prices down – and for American citizens that are on fixed income, I think one of the most important thinks that we could do as a country is to expand our energy exploration and our energy industry, whether it’s corn based with ethanol, or whether it’s gas, or with solar or wind.

Because once you get that huge amount of energy, you can drive down the cost of that energy.

Gasoline, electricity, the manufacturing costs, the costs of living can go down in this country if we will apply our energy resources that we have.

We’ve got 300 years worth of energy in this country.

Perry fell out of stride when confronted with a question about the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracking:

Voter: In reference to the natural gas, you talked about how there’s a huge natural gas deposit, it’s been proven that that technology to extract that energy has polluted groundwater.

Rick Perry: No ma’am.

Voter: Yes sir, it has.

Rick Perry: No ma’am.

We can have this conversation, but you cannot show me one place where there is a proven, not one, where there is a proven pollution of groundwater by hydraulic fracking.

Voices of other voters in the room: That’s false! That’s just false sir.

Rick Perry: Bring me the paper.

Show me the paper.

I’m just telling you – this whole – I am truly offended that the American public would be hoodwinked by stories that do not scientifically hold up.

If that was true it would be on the front page of every newspaper.

It would be on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News.

Everybody would be running that story.

We have be using hydraulic fracturing in my home state for years, and this is a fear tactic that the left is using and the environmental community is using to absolutely, excuse the pun, but does not hold water.

Voters again: That’s not true.

Rick Perry: Bring me the evidence.

And once you do that, you show it to me and I’ll be the first to say, “You’ve got a point.”

It didn’t take long for someone to step up to the plate and respond to Perry’s challenge. Within 24 hours, CBS News had posted a story covering the exchange, complete with link to a December 8, 2011 story bearing the headline “EPA suspects fracking linked to pollution”. That story covered an EPA study that, while still in draft form, links fracking to groundwater pollution.

C-Span has complete video of Rick Perry's town hall meeting in Decorah, Iowa.

Photo of Rick Perry by Ed Schipul via Wikipedia Commons

Barack Obama on EPA’s new mercury and air toxics standards - video

2011-12-22T04:01:00.000-08:00

U.S. President Barack Obama announced that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized the first-ever national standards to reduce mercury and other toxic air emissions – including arsenic, acid gas, and cyanide – from power plants on December 21, 2011:

Hello everybody,

Back in 1990, the first President Bush signed history legislation requiring our nation’s biggest polluters to limit the amount of mercury and other toxic gases that they were sending into the air.

It was a bold and necessary step to strengthen public health and protect the environment that we’ll leave to our kids.

But over the years, the law was never fully implemented.

Special interest groups kept delaying the process and remarkably, for over two decades emissions standards for our power plants, which are the dominant source of toxic pollution, were never put in place.

That was wrong. Today, my administration is saying, “Enough.”

We’re announcing common sense, new cost effective standards to dramatically reduce harmful air pollution.

Because we’re acting, emissions of mercury and other pollutants, which cause a range of health problems, including neurological damage in children, will decrease significantly.

In fact, we estimate we’ll prevent thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks, and thousands of cases of asthma in children each year by 2016.

So this is a good day.

It’s a good day in the fight for cleaner air.

It’s a good day in the fight for healthier communities.

And it’s a good day in the fight to protect our environment for the generations of Americans still to come.

Thanks.

Newt Gingrich talks ethanol in Hiawatha, Iowa - Video

2011-12-21T19:47:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich fielded questions on ethanol policy at a town hall meeting with voters at Level 10 Apparel's warehouse in Hiawatha, Iowa on December 19, 2011. Here's what the 2012 Republican presidential candidate and former House Speaker had to say:

Newt Gingrich: If the subsidy expires, it will not have a dramatic impact, as long as we keep the renewable fuel standard and as long as we’re moving towards flex fuels cars and flex fuel stations, which are the keys we need.

Because the truth is when you get to a certain price in oil, the production of ethanol and the production of corn have improved so much in the last 25 years that we are actually very competitive with oil, as long as – it has to be carried.

I mean the problem we have – this is what some our friends don’t understand about the development of biofuels.

Big oil would like to have nothing to do with it because Big Oil would like to sell nothing but oil. Okay?

I am for every America source of energy, because I think it is a national security issue, and if you watched last week when the Iranians were practicing closing the Straights of Hormuth, and you say to yourself, “How big would the industrial depression be if the Persian Gulf was cut off?”

We should be pretty deeply committed to getting to American sufficiency in energy and ethanol’s a part of that.

Voter: To that point, what happens under a Gingrich administration when oil’s back down to $40 a barrel? Then what happens?

Newt Gingrich: Well first of all, I think it’s not likely to have oil back down to $40 a barrel.

And second, as long as we have a renewable fuel standard it won’t matter, because you’ll have E 10 or E 15 ethanol.

I favor strongly going to E 15. There’s no technical reason the cars can’t use E 15 and that makes a big difference.

But in the long run we ought to do what the Brazilians have done. The Brazilians are going to a flex fuel car where every single car in Brazil can use any form of fuel you want and the result is that the Brazilians don’t rely on the Middle East for anything. Zero.

Okay, that ought to be our strategic goal.

Video of Newt Gingrich's ethanol remarks in Hiawatha, Iowa:

Newt Gingrich on coal reserves in Alaska

2011-12-21T19:39:00.000-08:00

Watch out Alaska! Here comes Newt Gingrich with plan to increase federal government revenue by turning an area of your state the size of Texas into a giant coal mine.
What follows are remarks made by the former House Speaker to The Des Moines Register Editorial Board during a December 15, 2011 interview:

I’m for more revenue by opening up federal lands.

You know, we own 69% of Alaska.

That’s 1 ½ times the size of Texas.

You can give half of Texas to the environmentalists and that would leave you an area the size of Texas to develop.

Largest coal reserve in the United States is in Alaska.

There are lots of things we can do to generate revenue. They just don’t involve raising taxes.

Video of Newt Gingrich's meeting with The Des Moines Register Editorial Board, with segment on Alaskan coal starting at 35:25:

Poll: 90% in New Hampshire believe climate change is happening now

2011-12-21T04:32:00.000-08:00

A majority of Americans believe that climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities, including 55 percent of New Hampshire residents and 52 percent nationwide. The findings come from a new Issue Brief - Do You Believe the Climate Is Changing? Answers From New Survey Research - published by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire on December 6, 2011.

Those majorities correspond roughly with the 54 percent of New Hampshire voters and 53 percent of voters nationwide who elected Barack Obama as President in 2008. Obama campaigned on implementing “an economy-wide cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.”

A substantial minority – 35 percent in New Hampshire and 39 percent nationally - believe that climate change is happening, but caused mainly by natural forces. A tiny minority – 3 percent in New Hampshire and 7 percent nationally – believe climate change is not happening now.

Survey data collected in August 2011 by the UNH Survey Center as part of the Granite State Poll shows disagreement over climate change falls largely along party lines in New Hampshire:

Climate change is happening now and caused mainly by humans:

82 percent of Democrats
43 percent of Independents
31 percent Republicans

Climate change is happening now and caused mainly by natural forces:

12 percent of Democrats
44 percent of Independents
55 percent of Republicans

Climate change is not happening now:

1 percent of Democrats
4 percent of Independents
5 percent of Republicans

Researcher Larry Hamilton, a professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire and senior fellow at the Carsey Institutes writes that Granite Staters' widely held belief (90%) that climate change is happening now “might reflect awareness of the tangible evidence for climate change in that state. This evidence includes such things as increasingly frequent mild winters, earlier ice-out dates on the big lakes, and seasonal shifts causing trouble for maple syrup production.”

While a number of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates dispute the idea that climate change is caused by human activity, at least one of those skeptics may be open to climate preparedness or adaptation strategies.

"It may be that it is dramatically less expensive to adjust to a change in climate than it is to stop the entire planet from changing," Newt Gingrich told voters gathered at a Granite State PAC house party in Manchester, NH back in May.

Read the full study:

Mitt Romney: Newt Gingrich “zany” on climate change, cap and trade

2011-12-19T05:03:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney again criticized Newt Gingrich’s record on climate change and cap and trade during a December 18, 2011 interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace:

The same was true with regards to cap and trade. This was being battled on Capitol Hill and the speaker sat down with Nancy Pelosi and spoke in favor of legislation dealing with climate change. He has been unreliable in those settings and zany, I wouldn't think you'd call mirrors in space to light highways at night particularly practical or a lunar colony a practical idea. Not at a stage like this.

Romney made similar comments at a December 17, 2011 town hall meeting with voters in Myrtle Beach, SC. The former Massachusetts Governor also described his own lukewarm belief in anthropogenic global warming at the event.